TAPASVINA BEHEN KISHORBHAI PATHAK Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Mr. Nanavati, learned AGP, has waived service of Rule. Present applicant has preferred this application seeking below mentioned relief(s):-

(2.) From the record it transpires that the applicant had booked a flat in the scheme launched by M/s. Dwarkadhish Developers in the name of Sai Smruti Residential & Commercial Complex. It is also claimed that the applicant paid the booking amount of Rs.50,000/- to the said M/s. Dwarkadhish Developers and in April 2008 a sale-deed was also executed. It further transpires that the applicant had certain grievances and complaints against the said M/s. Dwarkadhish Developers. It is claimed and alleged by the applicant that because of certain illegal acts of the said M/s. Dwarkadhish Developers, he was compelled to file complain and that therefore, in June 2009, he approached police with a request to register his complaint, however, the police did not take any action and did not register the complain. He has also alleged that since the complaint was not registered, an application before the learned JMFC, seeking directions for investigation under Section 156(3), was filed in respect of offence punishable under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 114 of the IPC. The said application-complaint was registered as Criminal Case No.114 of 2009. By order dated 21.08.2009 (page 125) the application praying for direction for investigation under Section 156(3) was rejected but an order to schedule the case for verification was passed. Aggrieved by the said order rejecting the request for direction for investigation under Section 156(3), the applicant herein filed Criminal Revision Application No.254 of 2009. The learned Sessions Court, by order dated 30.09.2009 (page 134) dismissed the said Criminal Revision Application No.254 of 2009. The applicant herein, feeling aggrieved by the said order passed by the learned Sessions Court, filed petition being Special Criminal Application No.2195 of 2009 which was dismissed by the High Court by order dated 11.02.2010 (page 140). Subsequently, as per the earlier order, the Criminal Case No.114 of 2009 was taken up for verification and verification was recorded on 24.02.2010 (page 150/1) and thereafter, by order dated 26.02.2010 (page 150/3) the learned Magistrate ordered inquiry under Section 202 of the Code and forwarded the application/complaint to the Raopura police station with a direction to file report within 10 days. The applicant was aggrieved by the said order directing inquiry under Section 202 and therefore, he filed Criminal Revision Application No.61 of 2010 (page 151). The said Criminal Revision Application was dismissed by order dated 09.06.2010 (page 162). Aggrieved by the said order dated 09.06.2010 passed by the Sessions Court dismissing the Criminal Revision Application No.61 of 2010, the applicant has preferred present application.

(3.) The entire chronology of the proceedings which have taken place until now, reveals that the applicant/complainant has twice insisted for inquiry/investigation under Section 156(3) and on both the occasions, the learned trial Court has not found any merits in the request and instead the trial Court has considered it appropriate, considering the facts of the case, to pass order forwarding the application under Section 202. On earlier occasion, the petition before the High Court also failed. Aggrieved by the said second order in the Criminal Revision Application No.61 of 2010 the applicant has preferred present application. The applicant has challenged the order dated 09.06.2010 passed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge in Criminal Revision Application No.61 of 2010 and the applicant has also challenged the order dated 26.02.2010. Heard Mr. Gotra, learned advocate for the applicant and Mr. Nanavati, learned APP, for the opponent State.